Pontus Ewerlöf

Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd

Stockholm www.hannessnellman.com

pontus.ewerlof@hannessnellman.com Tel: +46 760 000013

Biography

Pontus Ewerlöf is head of Hannes Snellman’s dispute resolution team in Stockholm. He has substantial experience in international and domestic arbitration under the SCC, ICC, ICSID, UNCITRAL rules, ad hoc proceedings and court proceedings in Sweden. His experience encompassing a wide range of areas such as supply, share and asset purchases, construction, real estate, finance, energy, investorstate disputes, professional and product liability, regulatory issues and insurance. Pontus also sits as arbitrator on a regular basis.

What inspired you to pursue a legal career?

My father is a former judge and I guess that our discussions regarding societal issues in general and the legal system in particular caught my interest for a legal career. Moreover, I am intrigued by the balance between a quite strict legal framework, on the one hand, and the creativity you may apply in the interpretation and argumentation of a legal issue, on the other hand. In disputes, I may also cater for the joy to compete, although no longer as an athlete but with words and arguments.

What inspired your choice of international arbitration as a field of practice and what do you enjoy most about international arbitration?

Being a lawyer in a small jurisdiction with a language known only to Scandinavians, I found the field of international arbitration a way to broaden the scope of my practice. I really enjoy the opportunity to meet with people from other jurisdictions often to find out that we all share similar problems to resolve and many fundamental features of law, such as the right to be heard and due process. It is also interesting to explore the differences between legal systems and culture of businesses and people.

How has the shift to online working and events affected networking opportunities?

One peculiarity with online working has been that networking has become more accessible and efficient since you may meet with more people in your network without so much planning. Instead of spending days on travelling you may reach out to colleagues around the world online. However, I still believe that the in-person meetings are more fruitful and much more fun.

Arbitrator independence and disclosure is a hot topic, with concerns that standards are opaque and restrictive. Do you agree?

I agree that it may sometimes feel as though the standards are quite opaque and restrictive. On the other hand, however, I believe that arbitrator independence is fundamental to the trust in arbitration and that the importance to uphold this should not be underestimated. In some instances, I believe that the standards are too restrictive, eg, in relation to global corporations with numerous subsidiaries in various jurisdictions, but where the dispute is local or limited in scope. You may find a similar situation in global law firms where even the smallest matter handled by a colleague in one jurisdiction not relevant to the arbitration must be disclosed and potentially could disqualify the arbitrator.

The current arbitration market is reportedly working with a small pool of arbitrators, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find arbitrators who do not have a conflict of interest. Do you agree, and if so, how can this issue be effectively addressed?

On a general level, I do not agree. But in some particular areas of law or disputes it has been increasingly difficult to find an arbitrator who is not conflicted. The way to address this is in my opinion not to relax the standards, but rather to actively educate a new generation of arbitrators and to encourage colleagues and clients to accept appointments of not only the “usual suspects”, but this broader pool of arbitrators.

In what ways have you noticed tribunals becoming more sophisticated and entertaining a greater variety of techniques in proceedings?

Quite to my surprise, tribunals quickly adjusted to the pandemic and adopted the concept of virtual hearings without too much fuss. During the past years, I have found that both counsel and tribunals have refined the way in which arbitrations could be conducted with a greater variety and flexibility in using technological tools. The most evident is certainly that many hearings have been held virtually or in a hybrid format, but the increasing use of online platforms for handling documents should also be noticed.

To what extent is arbitral discretion limited by due process?

The question is somewhat suggesting that there is a problematic clash of interest between arbitral discretion and due process. It is true that due process should always be the outer frame for a tribunal’s discretion. In my opinion, however, arbitral discretion is often a safeguard for due process. With less formal procedural rules to consider, tribunals may use their discretion to actively foster due process and, for example, see to it that the parties get an equal opportunity to present their case, respectively.

What is the most significant challenge arbitration will face over 2022–2023?

There are several challenges for arbitration in the coming years, but the origin of these challenges is different and they may be relevant to different areas of dispute resolution. The war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia as a result thereof will for sure give rise to unchartered issues in arbitration. The attack on ISDS, in particular in Europe, will most likely affect the way in which investor-state disputes are to be settled in the future. The pandemic will continue to cause problems also to arbitrations. In a broader perspective, the decline of globalisation and the corollary trend in protectionism will certainly affect international trade, which in turn may affect the scope of international arbitration. On the other hand, and on a more positive note, most of the above would probably result in more disputes to resolve. The challenge for us jointly is to continue to demonstrate the attractiveness with arbitration, ie, as the most efficient and reliable way of settling disputes.

Peers and clients say: “He is a top arbitration practitioner” “Mr Ewerlöf is reliable, prompt, diligent and dedicated to the matter at hand” “Pontus is an excellent and highly experienced counsel”